Articles Posted inN.D. California

During this patent infringement action, Apple filed a motion for discovery sanctions based on a failure to produce documents after a remand. The parties apparently had agreed to limited discovery post-remand, but a dispute arose over whether discovery before remand should be supplemented or corrected.

After filing an ex parte reexamination with the Patent Office, the defendant filed a motion to stay the action pending the ex parte reexamination.

In analyzing the request to stay the action, the district court noted that “[t]he decision of whether to stay this case during the potential ex parte reexamination is discretionary.” The district court also explained that courts have inherent power to manage their dockets, including by ordering a stay during a patent reexamination. See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Other cases in this district have considered, in deciding whether to stay a case pending patent reexamination or review, “(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005).Continue reading

In this patent infringement action, IBM filed a motion to compel production of certain documents that were withheld as privileged. IBM contend that time was of the essence when it filed its motion.

The district court was not persuaded by the urgency of the request or that time “was of the essence” because the motion was filed late. As explained by the district court, “IBM’s urgency is belied by the fact that its request is late. Fact discovery closed November 18. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, IBM’s motion to compel discovery was due within 7 days after the fact discovery deadline. Yet IBM filed its discovery motion on December 13, more than two weeks late.”Continue reading

After the district court conducted a claim construction hearing (but before it issued an order), the district court stayed the litigation between Finjan and Symantec pending a decision by the PTAB regarding whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) over the asserted patents. When the district court lifted the stay and issued a new scheduling order, Symantec filed a motion seeking additional claim construction briefing another hearing.Continue reading

In this long standing litigation between Oracle and Google, a dispute arose over the protective order and whether the disclosure of certain information violated the terms of the protective order when it was disclosed in open court. The district court explained that “[b]y long tradition, when a lawyer wishes to reveal in open court information whose disclosure is restricted by a protective order, the lawyer must first explain the restriction to the judge and (i) ask to seal the courtroom and transcript or (ii) hand up a copy of the restricted information to the judge.”

The district court then acknowledge that this practice “is not explicitly stated in our model protective order (or in the similar protective order adopted in this case), but this practice necessarily flows from the restrictions that are explicit, namely a limited list of allowed recipients that plainly omits the public. Of course, ‘the court and its personnel’ are usually allowed recipients but that phrase does not mean ‘the court, its personnel, and the public.’ Otherwise, the recipe for Coca-Cola or any other highly private information could be blurted out in open court. No one has ever claimed otherwise — until this case.”Continue reading

The Plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against the defendant, Netskope, accusing Netskope of infringing U.S. Patent Number 7,305,707 (the “707 Patent”). Netskope filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted finding that the asserted claims for the 707 Patent were unpatentable abstract ideas. The district court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Netskope, invalidating the ‘707 Patent.

After the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit, the parties settled the case and the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court. The Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion to vacate the district court’s judgment invalidating the ‘707 Patent.Continue reading

The plaintiff, [24]7 Customer, Inc. (“[24]/7”), filed a lawsuit against Defendant LivePerson, Inc. (“LivePerson”) alleging that LivePerson infringed several patents pertaining to a customer engagement software platform. After the lawsuit was filed, the parties entered into a stipulated protective order in which the parties agreed that “[a]ny source code produced in discovery shall be made available for inspection, in a format allowing it to be reasonably reviewed and searched, during normal business hours or at other mutually agreed times, at an office of the Producing Party’s Counsel or another mutually agreed upon location.”

Furthermore, the Protective Order provided that “[a]ll source code shall be made available by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record and/or experts on a secured computer in a secured room without Internet access or network access to other computers, as necessary and appropriate to prevent and protect against any unauthorized copying, transmission, removal or other transfer of any source code outside or away from the computer on which the source code is provided for inspection (the “Source Code Computer” in the “Source Code Review Room”).Continue reading

Apple filed an objection to EON’s plan to present a technology tutorial through its expert consultant. Apple asserted that the consultant was not disclosed as an expert on whom EON intended to rely upon during claim constructions, as required by the Local Patent Rules. Apple also asserted that the disclosure, which came only two days before the tutorial, was prejudicial because Apple did not have sufficient time to learn about and/or test the consultant’s opinions and credentials.

EON opposed the objection on the ground that Apple already knew of the consultant because he was disclosed under the protective order as someone who would have access to technical information. EON also argued that the consultant did not need to be disclosed because he was not testifying in support of EON’s claim construction positions. EON also argued that it would be prejudiced if the consultant was disclosed since it would be too late for EON to use another expert or present the tutorial through its counsel.Continue reading

As the re-trial in the Oracle v. Google case approaches, both parties requested an opportunity to use a jury questionnaire followed by a limited, one hour oral voir dire. The district court reviewed the proposed questionnaire and found that it would not save time and was likely suggested to permit the parties to learn the jurors names and addresses in order to perform Internet research on the backgrounds of the prospective jurors.

The district court explained that “[t]he joint questionnaire and procedure proposed by counsel, however, will not save time. At a minimum, it will add an extra day to the jury-selection procedure while the parties’ neutral vendor collects, copies, and distributes the responses. The proposed questionnaire, moreover, includes vague questions that seem more likely to generate vague answers than accurate answers, which will lead to the need for verbal follow-up and consume even more time.”Continue reading

Search

Trial Attorneys

Stan Gibson

Stan Gibson, an experienced technology and IP trial lawyer, represents inventors, manufacturers, owners and others in litigation centering on complicated technology. Stan's practice is national in scope and he represents both plaintiffs and defendants and has litigated dozens of cases on behalf of his clients, taking many of them to trial. Although most cases settle, Stan's ability to take cases to trial enhances their value and drives favorable verdicts and settlements. Contact him at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.

Greg Cordrey

Greg Cordrey, an experienced patent litigator and former flight test engineer, represents a wide range of industries including medical device, computer, e-commerce, semiconductor, automotive, aircraft, and consumer products. He has litigated patent cases nationwide and has practiced before the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Patent and Trademark office as a registered patent attorney with experience in concurrent litigation and patent reexamination proceedings. Greg is recognized as one of the "Best Lawyers in America" in IP Law, as well as a "Super Lawyer" and "Rising Star." Contact him at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com.

Rod Berman

Rod Berman is recognized by the Daily Journal as one of the top 30 intellectual property attorneys in the State of California, and by the Los Angeles Business Journal as one of the top 100 attorneys in Los Angeles. Rod's practice focuses on patent, trademark, copyright, unfair competition and internet responsibilities and includes counseling, litigation, opinions, licensing and prosecution. In addition to being a registered patent attorney, Rod is a court-recognized expert in patent and trademark law, and has successfully argued before the Federal Circuit. Contact Rod at 310.201.3517 or RBerman@jmbm.com.

Andrew Shadoff

Andrew Shadoff, is a litigation associate who has assisted in prosecuting and defending patent infringement lawsuits involving mechanical devices. He has drafted successful summary judgment motions and pretrial motions in limine, and has assisted with trial and witness preparation. Contact him at 310.712.6856 or AShadoff@jmbm.com.